`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. AND T-MOBILE US, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00018
`Patent 5,659,891
`
`______________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “Patent Board”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Joinder (IPR2015-00018)
`
`As set forth in Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (“Motion”), joinder will
`
`promote the efficient and consistent resolution of the validity of a single patent,
`
`will not prejudice the parties to the Apple IPR, and will eliminate duplicative
`
`filings and discovery as to the instituted grounds. Patent Owner Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, in its Opposition to the Motion
`
`(“Opposition”), however, attempts to argue against joinder of these close-in-time
`
`IPR proceedings that assert the same prior art. Patent Owner’s arguments are
`
`without merit, as set forth below. Petitioner’s Motion should be granted.
`
`First, despite the proceedings being close in time to each other, Patent
`
`Owner argues that joinder supposedly would create an “impossible scheduling
`
`conflict,” Opposition at 9-10. On the contrary, joinder will not impact the Board’s
`
`ability to complete its review in a timely manner. As set forth in the Motion,
`
`Petitioner agrees to adopt procedures similar to those adopted in Case IPR2014-
`
`00556 to minimize any complication or delay caused by joinder. Patent Owner’s
`
`suggestion that the schedule in the Apple IPR will be “substantially” impacted is
`without merit. See Opposition at 9-10. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, the
`
`Board can institute the T-Mobile IPR on the Petrovic grounds and join the two
`
`proceedings without delay because Petitioner seeks to join on the identical grounds
`
`and virtually identical arguments already reviewed and instituted on by the Board
`
`in the Apple IPR.1 Briefing on the Motion is now complete and the Board may act
`
`
`1 In its Opposition, Patent Owner argues that the two petitions have different claim
`
`construction arguments. Opposition at 7-8. Patent Owner’s argument is moot
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Joinder (IPR2015-00018)
`
`as soon as this month to institute the T-Mobile IPR on the Petrovic grounds and
`
`grant joinder to the Apple IPR.
`
`Second, despite Apple and Petitioner reciting the same art and Petitioner’s
`
`expert copying paragraphs from Apple’s expert declaration verbatim, Patent
`
`Owner argues that there is no showing that Apple and Petitioner would work
`
`together, Opposition at 1-2. Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing. By the
`
`inherent similarity of the proceedings, Petitioner will work together with Apple to
`
`prevent delay and promote efficiency. Further, as stated in Petitioner’s Motion,
`
`Petitioner agrees to adopt procedures in which Apple and Petitioner will file
`
`consolidated filings with Apple being lead or responsible, allowing Petitioner up to
`
`seven additional pages for points of disagreement. Motion at 8. In addition,
`
`Petitioner will work together with Apple to manage questioning at depositions and
`
`because the Board has already provided a preliminary claim construction in the
`
`Apple IPR. Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner’s petition provides different
`
`wording for a single limitation of claim 1. Id. at 8. There is no requirement, nor
`
`does Patent Owner cite any, that petitions must be identical for joinder. Further, a
`
`quick comparison of the Apple and T-Mobile IPR proceedings show that the
`
`proceedings on the ’210 and ’891 patents that are the subject of the Motion recite
`
`virtually the same art and arguments – it was with respect to the ’403 patent, not
`
`the subject of these motions for joinder, that T-Mobile’s IPR included additional
`
`art and argument as compared to Apple’s IPR.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Joinder (IPR2015-00018)
`
`presentations at hearings to avoid redundancy. Motion at 8. Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that Petitioner is not prepared to work with Apple because Petitioner
`
`would require consent of all parties to terminate the consolidated proceeding is a
`
`non sequitur. As stated above, Petitioner merely seeks clarification that settlement
`or termination of the consolidated proceeding requires the consent of all parties, as
`
`is the case for any district court proceeding.
`
`Third, Patent Owner argues that joinder will cause delay to the Apple IPR.
`
`Opposition at 3-6. Patent Owner will not be prejudiced. Petitioner’s joinder request
`
`is directed at the same claims, same prior art, same grounds of unpatentability, and
`
`virtually identical arguments instituted in the Apple IPR. Although the Petitioner’s
`
`petition included a declaration from Dr. Behnaam Aazhang, in addition to the
`
`Kakaes Declaration from the Apple IPR, the prejudice and delay of an additional
`
`declarant is minimal because Dr. Aazhang adopted the same opinions as
`
`Dr. Kakaes, numbering most of his paragraphs using a “K-x” numbering system to
`
`indicate that those paragraphs came from the Kakaes Declaration. Similarly, the
`
`procedures proposed by Petitioner account for points of disagreement between
`
`Apple and Petitioner, allowing Petitioner a mere seven pages for points of
`
`disagreement. Patent Owner points to no precedence or statutory authority
`
`requiring identical arguments to grant joinder, in fact, the proposed procedures
`
`adopted by the Board in several cases specifically acknowledge that minor points
`
`of disagreement may arise in consolidated proceedings. Accordingly, joinder is
`
`appropriate because it will promote the efficient and consistent resolution of the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Joinder (IPR2015-00018)
`
`validity of a single patent on the same grounds and will not prejudice the parties to
`
`the Apple IPR.
`
`For these reasons, as well as those set forth in the Motion, Petitioner
`respectfully requests that its Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`
`5,659,891 be instituted and that the proceeding be joined with the Apple IPR on
`
`the two instituted grounds. As to the non-instituted grounds, Petitioner seeks
`
`continuation according to the schedule of the T-Mobile IPR, allowing the Board to
`
`make a substantive institution decision on these grounds and narrowing the
`grounds at issue in the T-Mobile IPR.2 With the submission of this reply well
`ahead of the deadline, Petitioner respectfully submits that the issues are fully
`
`briefed and ripe for adjudication by the Board.
`
`Although Petitioner believes that no fee is required for this Motion, the
`
`Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional fees which may be
`
`required for this Reply to Deposit Account No. 50-5723.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`If the Board disagrees to allow the continuation of the T-Mobile IPR on the
`
`non-instituted grounds, T-Mobile respectfully requests joinder to the Apple IPR
`
`and consolidation of the two proceedings.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Joinder (IPR2015-00018)
`
`
`Dated: March 9, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Pierre J. Hubert/
`Pierre J. Hubert, Reg. No. 45,826
`Steven J. Pollinger, Reg. No. 35,326
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone: (512) 692-8700
`Fax: (512) 692-8744
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Joinder (IPR2015-00018)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(1) and 42.6(e)(4)(iii), the undersigned
`certifies
`that on March 9, 2015, a complete and entire copy of
`this
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR JOINDER
`was provided via electronic mail
`to
`the Patent Owner by serving the
`correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`
`John R. Kasha, Reg. No. 67,050
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`Kasha Law LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Rd.
`North Potomac, MD 20878
`Phone: (703) 867-1886
`Fax: (301)340-3022
`
`
`
`/Pierre J. Hubert/
`Pierre J. Hubert, Reg. No. 45,826
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone: (512) 692-8700
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`